St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-02-05
REvENUE AND raOR
Conclusive Kemsoms of Senator
Xyhiteman Against the Present
High s.EceuSe bill.

WhigcMau Against the Present
Rig Ia s.EceuSe bill.
Good speeches. full of protestations
against ''oppressng the poor saloonkeeper
by depriving him of his rights and busi-
ness, and giving the monopoly of the liquor
traffic to the rich Saloonkeeper, whose
gilded palace tempts and ruins the best
youth OF society,"" were made by Senators
Bowen, Hall Rep. }. Nachbar, Nelson, Ward,
Rep. y -Whiteman and Wood (Rep.) i'll
explaining their votes against the bill, Sena-
tor Browns motion for the previous ques-
ton having shut off debate while the bill
was pending. That OF Senator Whiteman,
of Duluth. contained argument abund-
autlv conclusive. and its best feature was
in arraying against each other the plausible
but inconsistent, theories OF the public
mOraliSt and political economist who advO-
cate the bill. Their propositions are:
Public morality-that it will decrease the
number Of saloons and thereby promote
public morality; political economy-that it
will increase public revenue by raising the
license If the saloons be decreased. ac-
cording to the m0Talist, public morality
NAV be promoted, but the revenue will not
be increased; if the revenue be increased,
according to the political economist, the
u.
the morality OF the community Is not better
promoted. He said:
/ have refrained from taking part in this
discussion, but deem il my duty to my con-
stituentS and to myself to explain at this
time my position oD this question. Tue
friends of the bill advocate its passage for
two distinct and principle reasons, Wis: First,
because it will promote morality; second, be-
cause il will increase the public revenue.
This is not the first time that friends OF a
measure have given reasons not consistent
with each in order to secure votes. 1t is
clear to all that the moral side of this Ques-
tion is in warfare with its revenue side, for
what will increase the one will necessarily
decrease the other. for ii the selling and
drinking of liquor are Immoral, as the moral
lists say. then the less sold and drank the bet
ter but without sellers and drinkers the
source of revenue, which is TO pour such a
stream inlo the public treasury, would be
drained No license being taken no revenue
would accrue. On the other hand the larger
the revenue. the greater the number Of
drinkers and sellers, and the worse the con-
dition Of the people. So it is clear the moral
ist and the public economist cannot take
shelter under this high license bill. Can
either? If it guarantees both Il larger rev.
epue and better morality, it should be care
fully considered and in
NO PARTISAN SPIRIT.
1t will not do to say that this is question
uron which there can be no honest difference
of opinion. Selling liquor is almost as old as
society, and for 500 years repeated attempts
have been made to regulate the traffic yet
during that time there have been many differ
ences OF opinion as to what was the proper
method 1t will not do 10 say that those who
onpose this bill favor free whisky, and are
onnosed to q proper regulation Of the traffic.
or tnat they are opposed TO fixing minimum
Iic.nse fee so that il shall be uniform through
ont the state, at what seems TO them q high
I
and should esteem it Il privilege to vote for
Ar but no alternative is left to US who oppose
this bill in Its present form but TO vote
AGAINST it. because its advocates seem de-
ternined that 1t shall pass in its present
form. some of them say they were elected
,,Don that issue, as if the figures $1,000 and
S5uO had been plainly written into q party
nlatform and they are determined that high
license in this state shall jump from S100 in
e. paul. and $500 in my own city of Duluth
to 81 OOO and al over the state there shall be
on increase i'll tho same proportion.
THE PARTY wEIP.
When the leading Republican paper of this
.+e+e sent p.inted circulars to the senator's
eject requestn their views on this question,
I renIied II at / favored high license. anu
os 0uotet as the only Democrat who favored
btrh lcen e. favor ii now as much as ever,
1T in n more modified form thun this bill
ovides In con mittee of the whole / pro-
rposed All amendmeut to reduce the amount
~ Sl 600 10 S50U Tor cltleS OF over lU,OU5 ln-
,ah;+ants. | saw that amendment defeated
i- those gentlemen who favor more limited
poostrictiou on the liquor traffic and those who
foror absolute prohibition. and when | saw
no of tne senators Of the same political
faith as myself voting gag against that amend
1neut, and the honorapie gentlemen from
1HiIi,nore. Waseca and Dakota counties voting
su its favor said to myself: "a party issue,
FndeedI" 1t is the cry of those who are for
n-,ar cracking the party whip and welding
ee ehe marty lash-of the men who would ask
s|on sS to vote for Annanias if he ran on party
yI.tforu of fasehood, or John Doe if he
Phoult buy a regular nomination at u county
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES you should hurrah for An
ha ha IT is this serviity which is stand
pU~ {"@ rnenace to popular favor The irishman
G Gidng in seean chair which had adj no hottola
fsAEa ,-ery much like walking; and to support
pocy however nnwise 0eeanss it receives
tpT tpTsSring the glittering arms and the uni
formed ranks of the army simply because il